Cincinnati Master 1000

[The Strokes]

I'm intrigued, in what way has Rafa profoundly changed his game. I haven't noticed too much this year, only his health. In fact the one thing I've noticed has been that a lot of people have employed similar tactics to Roger against Rafa. Go hard into Rafa's forehand. What do you see that Rafa has done this year that marks a profound change?

It was Djok that started going hard into Rafa's FH to get to the BH, but yes that's the way to try to beat Rafa, if you can do it. Not all can.

So what I'm about to describe applies best to Ao and FO, his best levels, FO being the very best. Some of this disappeared against Shap and Kyr, but at his best this year:\

Added around 10mph to his 1rst and serve, way less predictable in placement. This was maybe the biggest improvement The serve had been this hard in 2013, but not since

BH--also taking it earlier, really improved, became a weapon, at times hitting as many BH winners as FH winners

More forward court position in general.

The basic idea was to be more aggressive, very obvious. The game itself has become more aggressive since Rafa became a force.

 

[The Strokes]

Sorry typos: 1rst and 2nd serve

 

[Federberg]

It was Djok that started going hard into Rafa's FH to get to the BH, but yes that's the way to try to beat Rafa, if you can do it. Not all can.

So what I'm about to describe applies best to Ao and FO, his best levels, FO being the very best. Some of this disappeared against Shap and Kyr, but at his best this year:\

Added around 10mph to his 1rst and serve, way less predictable in placement. This was maybe the biggest improvement The serve had been this hard in 2013, but not since

BH--also taking it earlier, really improved, became a weapon, at times hitting as many BH winners as FH winners

More forward court position in general.

The basic idea was to be more aggressive, very obvious. The game itself has become more aggressive since Rafa became a force.

hmmm... I'll grant you that his backhand looks better, but his forehand is way worse to my eyes. His court positioning has tended to vary throughout the year, if it's a change it's not really sticking so much. I viewed it more that he's trying to do it more when he's allowed to. But he doesn't do it if a player is hitting consistently deep. This is different to Roger who simply doesn't budge. As for his serve I really sceptical about this, I'm not sure the stats back this up, but it would be interesting to see. In summary, his backhand is definitely improved but as a package I'm not sure I've discerned a profound change

 

[Moxie]

And stamina in 5th sets has rarely been the issue, just the mind mostly. Still laugh any time I see a Rafa fan imply another player's drug use.

I didn't say that, Front did. Talking about Kieran, who doesn't post here. But I still laugh that no matter how many conversations we have about it, and no matter how much you don't put up a good argument for it, you still like to make implications about Nadal, while never seeing any incongruity or double-standard in your position re: Roger. You merely believe what you believe, all logic be damned.

 

[The Strokes]

hmmm... I'll grant you that his backhand looks better, but his forehand is way worse to my eyes. His court positioning has tended to vary throughout the year, if it's a change it's not really sticking so much. I viewed it more that he's trying to do it more when he's allowed to. But he doesn't do it if a player is hitting consistently deep. This is different to Roger who simply doesn't budge. As for his serve I really sceptical about this, I'm not sure the stats back this up, but it would be interesting to see. In summary, his backhand is definitely improved but as a package I'm not sure I've discerned a profound change

Obviously they're very different kind of players re Rogers doesn't budge.
Roger isn't known for adjustments to his game during match, he's either on or he isn't.
His FH wasn't worse Ao or FO that's why I made the distinction of his best play this year, and his less great.

Don't discern a profound change from 2015/2016 to 2017? Then you can't see.
He went from #9 to #1. He won more points this year than anyone, including Fed; he was in more finals this year than anyone including Fed.
He had his most dominant FO ever, in his entire career.
\
So. I sense you';re leading me into Fedal fighting, by saying you don't see a change.
Really, it's bloody obvious to anyone who understands tennis and isn't trying to make a point that Nadal hasn't changed.
I won't be going any further into this.

 

[The Strokes]

I didn't say that, Front did. Talking about Kieran, who doesn't post here. But I still laugh that no matter how many conversations we have about it, and no matter how much you don't put up a good argument for it, you still like to make implications about Nadal, while never seeing any incongruity or double-standard in your position re: Roger. You merely believe what you believe, all logic be damned.

Yeah there it is, below.
I don't like to feel I'm wasting my time explaining to seemingly sincere Fed fans who ask questions, then negate any positive things that are said about Nadal.
Same old same old.

Carol told me a lot of Nadal fans left this site for these kind of reasons.

Same everywhere. Very hard to even post about Nadal without getting this crap.
Fed fans are obviously miffed he went to #1 not Fed.
<>LOL

 

[Carol]

Yeah there it is, below.
I don't like to feel I'm wasting my time explaining to seemingly sincere Fed fans who ask questions, then negate any positive things that are said about Nadal.
Same old same old.

Carol told me a lot of Nadal fans left this site for these kind of reasons.

Same everywhere. Very hard to even post about Nadal without getting this crap.
Fed fans are obviously miffed he went to #1 not Fed.
<>LOL

Lol, I said a couple of them and I really miss them, both were very good and reasonable posters

 

[Moxie]

Yeah there it is, below.
I don't like to feel I'm wasting my time explaining to seemingly sincere Fed fans who ask questions, then negate any positive things that are said about Nadal.
Same old same old.

Carol told me a lot of Nadal fans left this site for these kind of reasons.

Same everywhere. Very hard to even post about Nadal without getting this crap.
Fed fans are obviously miffed he went to #1 not Fed.
<>LOL

I can't really think of any Nadal fans that left this forum because Rafa has been misused. If they left, like Clay Death, they left for other reasons. It is a thing that certain Fed fans like to cast aspersions, however without merit. To me, the answer is to go at them, but not tuck tail and run.

 

[Carol]

I can't really think of any Nadal fans that left this forum because Rafa has been misused. If they left, like Clay Death, they left for other reasons. It is a thing that certain Fed fans like to cast aspersions, however without merit. To me, the answer is to go at them, but not tuck tail and run.

I wasn't referring about Clay Death but what about Kieran, Tennis Fan and AP?

 

[Murat B.]

Where IS Kieran? He needs to come back .

 

[shawnbm]

^ yes!

 

[The Strokes]

I can't really think of any Nadal fans that left this forum because Rafa has been misused. If they left, like Clay Death, they left for other reasons. It is a thing that certain Fed fans like to cast aspersions, however without merit. To me, the answer is to go at them, but not tuck tail and run.

tuck tail and run?
That's pretty insulting and presumptious.
If someone finds this place unappealing, it doesn't mean they're a coward.
It probably means they have no taste for stupid repititive squabbling, no taste for more unessessary fighting in life, no interest in endless redundant debates that go nowhere, that have no resolution, maybe the forum wasn't intelligent, articulate , funny, interesting or enjoyable enough.

 

[Federberg]

Obviously they're very different kind of players re Rogers doesn't budge.
Roger isn't known for adjustments to his game during match, he's either on or he isn't.
His FH wasn't worse Ao or FO that's why I made the distinction of his best play this year, and his less great.

Don't discern a profound change from 2015/2016 to 2017? Then you can't see.
He went from #9 to #1. He won more points this year than anyone, including Fed; he was in more finals this year than anyone including Fed.
He had his most dominant FO ever, in his entire career.
\
So. I sense you';re leading me into Fedal fighting, by saying you don't see a change.
Really, it's bloody obvious to anyone who understands tennis and isn't trying to make a point that Nadal hasn't changed.
I won't be going any further into this.

I have to disagree. Both Roger and Rafa are excellent at in game adjustments, that's one of the keys to their success. Perhaps we're talking about different things here because you seem to be focussing on results while I'm looking at playing style, these aren't the same thing. I would suggest that the biggest reason for Fedal success this year is health. In Federers case I see significant changes in style as well, including a willingness to go over his backhand more, greater aggression generally, steadfast refusal to cede the baseline, greater willingness to attack serves, and more opportunistic net approaches. In Rafa's case I don't see much change although I do agree his backhand is better. I'm not convinced about either his serving or a new commitment to control the baseline. I just haven't seen it.

Let me be clear, to me the most significant change for Roger I've seen is not the backhand. It's the more aggressive serve returns. But for both of them I would actually say that their forehands have actually been less impressive this year which is an amazing thing to say. I don't know why you would think that my observations are Fedal related they're not. Simple eye test. And I'm confused as to why you would start talking about rankings as evidence of a profound change in what they're doing. These guys are simply better than the rest so it stands to reason that if they're healthy the results would come. Using the eye test you can see what's different in their games, why that's controversial escapes me

 

[Carol]

The way that Rafa played RG was impressive and better than ever with the serve, BH, FH and net approaches playing on a surface not suitable for anyone like we have seen for several years. What happened later in Wimbledon, Montreal and Cincy? who knows, I don't take anything to his opponents, they played well but what about Rafa? not too good in Montreal and even worse in Cincy where after to see the poor game he played against Ramos I thought that he would have to lift his game otherwise he wouldn't reach the final, we know already what happened. There is something clear, it's very difficult to anyone to keep tournament by tournament playing their best and less jumping from one surface to the other plus the mentally part has a lot to do with that too. When Novak won for the first time RG and later he lost in Wimbledon and in the HC season too many people was saying that he got "to relaxed" because that win.....what about to win 10 RG?. we have not any idea what goes with the players when they get such wonderful achievements (I can say the same thing about Federer and his 8 Wimbledon) I think that all the stress and mentally strength goes down temporary and that's why sometimes they don't look so good in the next tournaments. In one word, I hope to see a much better Rafa Nadal in this USO

 

[Front242]

Obviously they're very different kind of players re Rogers doesn't budge.
Roger isn't known for adjustments to his game during match, he's either on or he isn't.
His FH wasn't worse Ao or FO that's why I made the distinction of his best play this year, and his less great.

Don't discern a profound change from 2015/2016 to 2017? Then you can't see.
He went from #9 to #1. He won more points this year than anyone, including Fed; he was in more finals this year than anyone including Fed.
He had his most dominant FO ever, in his entire career.
\
So. I sense you';re leading me into Fedal fighting, by saying you don't see a change.
Really, it's bloody obvious to anyone who understands tennis and isn't trying to make a point that Nadal hasn't changed.
I won't be going any further into this.

Federer skipped the WHOLE clay season and Cinci and Nadal barely leads him. Let's keep things in perspective.

 

[mrzz]

Same everywhere. Very hard to even post about Nadal without getting this crap.
Fed fans are obviously miffed he went to #1 not Fed.

Easy, fellow poster. It is not because that people disagree with you that what they say is "crap". It is not like people are just negating things without a proper debate -- if you want to see a good example of this please check Monty Pythons's argument clinic -- not exactly what we have here.

Perspective here helps. It is not that people are saying that his game is set in stone, only that you don't see that much of a change (strategically wise). I agree with that. That his level increased dramatically (in relation to 2015 for example), no one is questioning. Of course there are differences... but are they that fundamental? Honestly, the main thing for me is that if a player is doing better his bread and butter shots, he will get better results. He is clearly doing better his preferred shots.

Ok, maybe the fans pay much more attention... for example, you just posted that:

Roger isn't known for adjustments to his game during match, he's either on or he isn't.

Just a few days ago, in the Ferrer match in Montreal, Federer was being soundly beaten from the baseline (ouch, but true). About halfway through set 2, he simply started going forward much, much more. Simple but yet pretty radical adjustment that won him the match. Will I say that Federer is better at making adjustments than Nadal? Obviously not, on a scale from zero to 100, I would give 99 to Nadal in that department. But I would give Federer an 85 or more, at least from 2012 on. While he was on his prime, ok, he was way more stubborn. My point is that's just a matter of perspective.

About the posters who left, at least one of them I remember quite well that he posted a few times that he was absolutely sure that was completely and utterly and astoundingly impossible that one could even consider the possibility of Nadal losing to Muller at Wimbledon. I can understand why he is not posting anymore... (and btw I am not crucifying the guy for this, just to show that there are other quite real possibilities).

 

[DarthFed]

I didn't say that, Front did. Talking about Kieran, who doesn't post here. But I still laugh that no matter how many conversations we have about it, and no matter how much you don't put up a good argument for it, you still like to make implications about Nadal, while never seeing any incongruity or double-standard in your position re: Roger. You merely believe what you believe, all logic be damned.

Yeah little Miss Innocent again. "It took until 35 for him to somehow develop the stamina to withstand a 5th set". Does that imply anything except the obvious?

And there is no point in talking PED's in depth with you as I remember you basically scoffing at the notion that all athletes, regardless of age and talent, have an incentive to take them. If you can't agree with that then there is no point in talking about it.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah little Miss Innocent again. "It took until 35 for him to somehow develop the stamina to withstand a 5th set". Does that imply anything except the obvious?

And there is no point in talking PED's in depth with you as I remember you basically scoffing at the notion that all athletes, regardless of age and talent, have an incentive to take them. If you can't agree with that then there is no point in talking about it.

I poke at you because you are absolutely certain that one does/has and the other doesn't/has no reason to. Now, I've never said that I don't believe any athletes do or have incentive to. (Always ascribing to me some absolute that I don't profess.) However, in tennis, I think there is much more incentive for players at a lower level of elite talent. As to Maria, I think that she used it before it was banned, and then likely thought she couldn't do without it. We have discussed that everyone likely avails themselves of supplements and procedures that are legal to-date.

 

[DarthFed]

I poke at you because you are absolutely certain that one does/has and the other doesn't/has no reason to. Now, I've never said that I don't believe any athletes do or have incentive to. (Always ascribing to me some absolute that I don't profess.) However, in tennis, I think there is much more incentive for players at a lower level of elite talent. As to Maria, I think that she used it before it was banned, and then likely thought she couldn't do without it. We have discussed that everyone likely avails themselves of supplements and procedures that are legal to-date.

When have I said I'm absolutely certain Rafa's taken them. I'm not. I'm also not absolutely certain Fed hasn't.

You have said that you don't think an upcoming strong talent has major incentive to take PED's and you're very wrong.

Think about guys like Berd and Tsonga. They've spent a lot of time in the top ten and aside from a decent amount of money they have nothing to show for it. They will largely be forgotten by all within 10 years of their retirement except for tennis nuts like ourselves. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm just showing you the universe of difference between a top 10 player winning very little and one of the elite players in the sport who has collected dozens of big tourneys. Do you think Tsonga and Berd don't wish like hell they were that 5-10% better which could've made a world of difference?

There are tons of "stars" across many sports that were career juicers meaning their entire legacies were built on PED's. Especially prevalent in baseball with guys like Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa and others. You're kidding yourself if you don't think good young tennis talents have a major incentive to cheat. There are no guarantees they will pan out. But PED's guarantee they will be better than they could on their own

 

[Moxie]

When have I said I'm absolutely certain Rafa's taken them. I'm not. I'm also not absolutely certain Fed hasn't.

You have said that you don't think an upcoming strong talent has major incentive to take PED's and you're very wrong.

Think about guys like Berd and Tsonga. They've spent a lot of time in the top ten and aside from a decent amount of money they have nothing to show for it. They will largely be forgotten by all within 10 years of their retirement except for tennis nuts like ourselves. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm just showing you the universe of difference between a top 10 player winning very little and one of the elite players in the sport who has collected dozens of big tourneys. Do you think Tsonga and Berd don't wish like hell they were that 5-10% better which could've made a world of difference?

There are tons of "stars" across many sports that were career juicers meaning their entire legacies were built on PED's. Especially prevalent in baseball with guys like Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa and others. You're kidding yourself if you don't think good young tennis talents have a major incentive to cheat. There are no guarantees they will pan out. But PED's guarantee they will be better than they could on their own

No, I have specifically said that the upcoming strong talent that was Rafael Nadal didn't have any incentive to take PEDs. My argument with you is only between Nadal and Federer. I don't believe you've ever said that you're not certain that Nadal hasn't doped, but you have often implied that you believe he has. And you've often implied that you're sure that Roger is clean, particularly by sneering at any implication, and countering with a snide remark about Nadal. Who's playing Mr. Innocent, now?

But, hey, at least you just said that either could be culpable, which should mean that either, or both could be clean. Your argument about the others is a distraction. We all understand that. But you've always tried to argue that Nadal was doping from 2005. This makes no sense. He was beating nearly everyone in front of him from 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 years old. Won a Major at barely 19. Whereas Roger was considered a potential talent, yet was not fulfilling it. Who had the greater incentive to look for a bump? And who, at nearly 22, took to a different level? I don't think it's because Roger doped, but I think you should look at the comparatives in their early careers for the nonsense of your argument as to Nadal in 2005. There is no real incentive for either one, given their prodigious talent.

I will stand by this: things like tennis IQ, footwork, timing, commitment, mental strength, ambition and real natural talent don't come in a bottle or a needle. Maybe some more middling players get the benefit of another round or two by cheating, but I believe that the talent that Roger and Rafa both displayed from young age, and rolled into their professional careers, came early, clean and needed no adulteration. I've said it before: if anything, either of them would have been more likely to look for artificial help in recent years. Which isn't a hidden swipe. I don't really think Roger doped to get where he got this last year. I'm just sick to death of years of the likes of you and Front making cheap shots in Nadal's direction, for less than no reason. But, and sorry for boring everyone else, if you keep it up, I will fight you on it.